EPA – The National Wildlife Federation Bloghttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogWed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:16 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4139259312A Silver Lining for Conservationists in 2017 — We’re Winning The War of Ideashttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/12/a-silver-lining-for-conservationists-in-2017-were-winning-the-war-of-ideas/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/12/a-silver-lining-for-conservationists-in-2017-were-winning-the-war-of-ideas/#respondTue, 19 Dec 2017 21:51:25 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=132462It hasn’t exactly been a banner year for conservation. The Paris Climate Agreement had two out of three remaining holdouts, Syria and Nicaragua, sign the accord — leaving the U.S. as the only country uncommitted to fighting climate change. The Trump Administration has said that coal is back despite all evidence to the contrary and skepticism that the coal jobs they claim to have created may not exist. The republican tax bill plans to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling despite massive opposition from the public and indigenous groups. And the Trump Administration is seeing if they can get away with using the Antiquities Act to downsize Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments so they can open the land to industrial extraction.

But conservationists can take a deep breath. If the past year has illustrated anything, it’s that American politics can change. Fast. While conservationists may not have won many environmental battles this year, they can take solace in the fact that they are winning the war of ideas.

New findings reveal puffins may be on the front lines of climate change. Photo credit: Billtacular | Flickr

Yale University is constantly polling Americans on climate change issues. The good news is that 58% of Americans believe that climate change is caused by humans in a national survey. They also noted that this is the highest level they have measured with their surveys since they began nine years ago. A similar Gallup poll found that Americans who are worried about global warming hit a three-decade high in 2017. Americans are becoming more concerned about climate change and its effects on the planet and they are taking the threat more seriously than ever.

A Quinnipiac poll found that 79% of young Americans (under 35) disapprove of Trump’s attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the rollbacks of clean air, clean water, and climate regulations.

Young Americans are keeping up with the rollbacks to environmental protections and they are becoming a powerful force in the electorate. Experts estimate that the 2020 election will be the first election where millennial voters will represent a larger portion of the electorate than baby boomers — who have remained the largest voting generation since 1978. Climate change will most likely become a growing issue during election cycles in the future.

Science and climate change supporters went on the offensive this year. The People’s Climate March in April saw an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 protesters in Washington D.C. alone, with many other marches across the country also drawing thousands of people of their own. By bringing climate issues to the forefront, it will be harder and harder for politicians to avoid engaging on climate change issues.

After Hurricanes Harvey and Irma hit this summer, scientists noted the link between climate change and the increasing power and frequency of major storms. The good news is that pollsters found that people also saw the link and believed it. A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 55% of Americans recognized climate change was to blame for the severity of hurricanes. This is in sharp contrast to the responses they received in 2006 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, where only 39% of those polled thought climate change was to blame. The amount of people actively recognizing the effect climate change is already having is growing.

Americans aren’t just worried about climate change. They’re also becoming more focused on solutions. A University of Chicago and Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs poll found that 61% of Americans think the U.S. government should address climate change. Although the Trump administration claims to speak for the people in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, a majority of Americans consistently say they want the government addressing climate change.

After state and local governments stepped in to do their part to honor the U.S. goals under the Paris Agreement, 57% said they supported the actions these local officials. The poll also found that,

“among those who believe climate change is happening, the vast majority believe the government should take steps to address it, including a majority of Republicans.”

Although the media regularly inflates the vocal opponents of climate change and disreputable critics of the science behind it, it appears that the issue is much less polarized among real Americans when polled.

October is the month for scary stories, so here goes. Once upon a time, there were no federal standards to protect water quality in our rivers, streams, bays, and lakes. The result? Rivers like Ohio’s Cuyahoga River caught fire multiple times before the infamous fire in 1969. The average loss of wetlands in the United States from the 1950s to the 1970s was 458,000 acres per year. So much industrial pollution and agricultural runoff fouled Lake Erie that it was declared dead in the 1960s – the pollution was so devastating that Dr. Seuss referred to Lake Erie’s deterioration in The Lorax.

In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which, for forty-five years, has helped safeguard our nation’s water resources. The Act established pollution controls and water quality minimums that states must reach. It also established grant programs for states, territories, and tribes that are critical to help focus local and state efforts to achieve these standards. Over the past four decades, the rate of wetland loss slowed, rivers stopped catching fire, and the number of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled.

River otters can stay under water for up to eight minutes! They live in ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams. Photo by Dmitry Azovtsev.

Clean Water Act Under Attack

Despite these Clean Water Act successes, there is still a long way to go – nearly half of our nation’s rivers and streams are in poor health. However, the progress we’ve made is in danger of being completely erased. As the Clean Water Act approaches its 45th anniversary, the Trump Administration is mounting an all-out assault on our clean water, through proposed budget cuts and legislative attacks as well as directly weakening the Clean Water Act itself.

The short comment period on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s haphazard effort to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule ended several weeks ago. More than half a million Americans asked the EPA to drop its plan to repeal these protections and some of their comments are listed below. Their message is clear – Americans expect the EPA to enforce a strong Clean Water Act and protect our waters, not open them up to more pollution.

“As a hunter and angler, I am deeply appalled at the proposal to roll back the Clean Water Rule. The bedrock of our hunting and fishing opportunities is the wildlife which supports them, and our wildlife – as do we – require the strongest possible protections for water. The hornet’s nest of hunters and anglers who care about public land and clean water is not one that should be kicked. I oppose any rollback of the Clean Water Rule and any weakening of the Clean Water Act.”

– Drew, Ann Arbor, MI

“The widely-supported Clean Water Rule helps the Clean Water Act achieve its goals by clarifying which waters are protected by the Act. It better protects millions of acres of small streams and wetlands that serve as critical fish and wildlife habitat as well as provide the drinking water for 117 million Americans. The rule is guided by sound science, extensive and transparent public input, and the law.”

– Janet, Helena, MT

“As a mother and grandmother, I oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ proposal to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule. I also oppose your plan to weaken common-sense safeguards that protect our water resources via a new rulemaking action. These rollbacks put the waters that we depend on at risk.”

– Edyth, Incline Village, NV

“The Clean Water Act was put in place-indeed, the EPA was created-to protect us and future generations from these pollutants. Overturning these protections serves only to cut costs for the polluters, and thereby increase their profits. Average American citizens will suffer, not benefit, from lifting these restrictions.”

– John, Waterford, MI

“Clean water is not optional, but essential to life, and so I very much oppose any proposal to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, any plan to weaken common-sense safeguards that protect our water. It is vitally important to safeguard our nation’s wildlife, drinking water, jobs, health, and outdoor economy.”

– Helen, Kansas City, KS

“This isn’t about politics. It is about basic survival. Our clean water regulations need to be strengthened. We need clean water and air to survive, for us, our children and our children’s children.”

– Shawn, Denver, CO

Since 2014, more than one million Americans have told the EPA that clean water is essential to their way of life. These voices will not be silent as the Administration moves forward with its plan to weaken the Clean Water Act. Administrator Pruitt is gearing up to propose a rule-making that would replace the Clean Water Rule with a new rule that would likely dramatically reduce what waters are protected by the Clean Water Act. Rolling back the Clean Water Act like this could threaten the drinking water supplies for more than 117 million people by leaving as many as 60% of stream miles and at least 20 million acres of wetlands without the protection of the Clean Water Act. Weakening these critical protections would harm fish and wildlife habitat and our drinking water supply, threatening America’s hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation economy as well as putting communities at increased risk from storms and floods.

Roseate spoonbills are found in shallow wetlands where they search for food by moving their heads from side to side, sifting through the murky water with their flat bills. Photo by Jenni Kerteston.

Defend the Clean Water Act on its 45th Anniversary

History has shown us what happens without nationwide clean water standards. We must move forward, not backward. Stand up for the Clean Water Act and tell Congress, the Administration, and your Governor that you oppose any attack on our clean water.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/10/clean-water-act-turns-45-lets-keep-it-strong/feed/0131280EPA: Hear Our Voices, Protect Clean Waterhttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/10/epa-hear-our-voices-protect-clean-water/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/10/epa-hear-our-voices-protect-clean-water/#respondThu, 05 Oct 2017 17:13:14 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=130908We all deserve clean water, be it for drinking, swimming, or fishing. However, the Trump Administration is on a path to roll back Clean Water Act protections that have safeguarded our waters from pollution for more than four decades. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency ended a brief public comment period on its hastily-proposed plan to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, threatening our nation’s drinking water and outdoor heritage.

The widely-support Clean Water Rule clarifies what kinds of water bodies are protected by the Clean Water Act – and which ones aren’t. This much-needed rulemaking reestablishes protections for headwater, rain-fed, and seasonal streams and wetlands that provide the drinking water for more than 117 million Americans. These same waters serve as nesting habitat for more than half of North American migratory waterfowl and spawning grounds for trout and salmon. Small streams and wetlands also help recharge groundwater supplies, filter pollution and protect communities from floods.

Photo by Don Sand via canva.com

The Clean Water Rule was informed by years of research and more than 400 stakeholder meetings. The science behind the rule is backed by more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific publications. The public was able to provide input on this process for seven months. During this lengthy public comment period, the EPA received more than one million comments, 87% of which were supportive of the rule.

Despite the extensive scientific and public support for the rule, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is moving ahead with the proposed repeal of the Clean Water Rule – and he’s doing it in a much more restrictive, less transparent way. In contrast to the seven month comment period that informed the final Clean Water Rule, the comment period on the proposed repeal was open for only 60 days; an attempt to diminish the voices of those impacted most by the repeal.

Repealing the rule could put our drinking water and 60% of our nation’s stream miles and millions of acres of wetlands that provide essential fish and wildlife habitat at risk. The $201 billion dollar hunting and fishing industry that accounts for 1.5 million jobs relies on healthy wetlands and could be severely threatened by the repeal of the rule.

Photo by Mikey Sabadic via canva.com

Americans care about clean water. Last week, they made their voices heard. A broad coalition of national, regional, and local organizations have submitted hundreds of thousands of comments to the EPA, demanding they abandon the reckless plan to repeal the Clean Water Rule. The coalition is comprised of clean water stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds – including conservation, environmental, public health, faith, environmental justice, business, and community organizations. More than half a million stakeholders commented in support of the Clean Water Rule, and 417 organizations signed onto a letter .

While we have done great work to highlight the importance of clean water, the fight is far from over. The EPA is expected to quickly roll out step two of their assault on water, which will likely propose to replace the Clean Water Rule in a way that dramatically rolls back the historic scope of the Clean Water Act. As this process unfolds, we still need your help to defend water. The EPA is currently accepting comments on step two.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/10/epa-hear-our-voices-protect-clean-water/feed/0130908Backfiring Biofuels: Are They Really Renewable?http://blog.nwf.org/2017/08/backfiring-biofuels-are-they-really-renewable/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/08/backfiring-biofuels-are-they-really-renewable/#respondThu, 10 Aug 2017 14:00:28 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=129998August 10th is International Biodiesel Day – a day originally created to celebrate adoption of non-traditional fuels. But, some of these biofuels have been proven to be more damaging to the environment than initially imagined. Despite this data, a problematic push for “green” biofuel continues globally.

While the original intent to use biofuels was to reduce emissions, using some of them may effectively be doing the opposite.

Biofuel is an umbrella term referring to the multiple classifications of fuels derived directly from living matter. Often made from corn, sugar cane, wheat, soy, palm oil and other agricultural materials, biodiesel and ethanol are two of the most popular types of biofuels. Both kinds can be made from wastes and not virgin materials which reduces their impacts. Compared to traditional fossil fuels, biofuels are cleaner at the pipe and many emit less greenhouse gases (GHG). However, the acceptance of biofuels as a truly renewable energy source is increasingly questioned.

A Very Brief History

A decade ago, many believed that their potential for reducing emissions characterized biofuels as a silver bullet to solve climate change. Blending biofuel with traditional fossil fuels was an easy way to embrace renewable energy and to target greenhouse gas reduction goals. Since the year 2000, there has been more than a 650% increase in the global daily production of biofuels. Without intervention, this trend is likely to continue. In 2017, the U.S. mandated through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that approximately 25 billion gallons of biofuel are to be mixed into traditional fuels, more than a 200% increase from 2008. Around the world, countries have established targets to continually increase the amount of biofuels blended into fossil fuels.

Corn and Palm Oil Harvest

Renewable or Refutable?

Sage grouse are threatened by land conversion in the U.S.

A persistent debate about the negative effects of biofuel calls into question the benefits of this resource. Throughout the last decade, the push for biofuel production increased demand for food crops like corn, palm oil, and soy, leading to destructive deforestation and land conversion across the globe. In the United States alone, over 7 million acres of native prairie, wetlands, rangeland, and forests were converted to cropland in large part for biofuel products from 2008 to 2012. Similarly, in Malaysia and Indonesia, about 2.5 million acres of tropical soils were lost due to palm oil production for biodiesel.

Biofuel Backlash

These alarming rates of land conversion for growing crops for biofuels have devastating results. Habitat loss endangers wildlife populations that depend on these ecosystems for basic survival. In the United States, the Prairie Pothole Region is threatened, putting more than 60% of the country’s waterfowl population at risk. In Indonesia and Malaysia, elephants, tigers, and orangutans are only a few of the species critically endangered as a result of palm oil expansion. The consequence of irresponsible biofuel production directly threatens global biodiversity.

Land cleared for palm oil

Studies have concluded that when accounting for land conversion within the life cycle of crop-based biofuels, they create significantly more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional fossil fuels – some studies reporting that biofuels which cause deforestation produce up to 80% more GHG emissions. When crucial carbon ‘sinks’ like forests, native grasslands, and peatlands are depleted, their ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere is also eliminated. While the original intent was to reduce emissions, using crop based biofuels may effectively be doing the opposite.

Moving Forward

Wind farm

It isn’t all bad, though. Some biofuels are certified as ‘sustainable,’ and these can play an essential role in industries that do not have viable alternatives to liquid fuels, like aviation and marine shipping. There is a renewed interest to move away from biofuels derived from corn and palm oil, and to move instead towards biofuels that use waste materials like used cooking oil and municipal solid waste. Certification by the global Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) ensures that biofuel production incorporates proper social, environmental, and ethical safeguards. It is important to recognize that biofuels are not the silver bullet that was once hoped, but we can look to the RSB eco-label as a guide, and push for changes in U.S. biofuels law (see Take Action Now, below). We must also continue pushing for renewable power, electric vehicles, energy efficient buildings, and other ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

If you care about bringing back vanishing North American wildlife species, add your voice calling for a stop to the destruction of scarce, remaining grasslands in the U.S.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/08/backfiring-biofuels-are-they-really-renewable/feed/0129998New Attack on Clean Water & Democratic Processeshttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/07/new-attack-on-clean-water-democratic-processes/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/07/new-attack-on-clean-water-democratic-processes/#commentsThu, 27 Jul 2017 23:11:17 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=129870Everyone wants clean water for drinking, fishing, and swimming. People also deserve a say in their government’s actions. Right now though, threats are brewing for both our clean water and the integrity of our democratic processes.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has already begun a plan to roll back our clean water safeguards, threatening drinking water supplies for more than 117 million Americans. A bad provision in the House and Senate spending bill for fiscal year 2018 is making it easier for Pruitt to get away with this by changing existing law and cutting the public out of the process entirely.

A critical part of our democratic process is the legal requirement that federal agencies make decisions through an open, transparent process with public input and accountability. The longstanding law that protects the public’s interest this way is called the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations, policy statements, licenses, and permits and requires that agencies provide opportunities for the public to comment on proposed rulemakings. This ensures that federal rules are informed by science, facts, the public’s interest, and the law.

Photo by Sue Cullumber.

The rider in the spending package allows Scott Pruitt to disregard the Administrative Procedure Act and “any provision of statute or regulation,” and ignore public input as the Trump Administration attempts to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule. This will considerably ease the repeal effort because the public support for clean water is so strong. When the Clean Water Rule was developed, 87% of the 1 million public comments were supportive of the rule.

This rider also sets a dangerous precedent for future rulemakings of any kind. If agencies are allowed to make unaccountable, backroom decisions on important matters like public health, worker safety, climate change and other matters with only lobbyists whispering in their ears, it undermines our democratic process, our laws, and puts us all at risk.

Photo by Dmitry Azovtsev.

At the same time, the EPA Administrator Pruitt is traveling around the country meeting with industry advocates and agri-businesses about rolling back the Clean Water Act. So far, these meetings have excluded everyone else – hunters, anglers, vulnerable communities – anyone who might care about strong clean water standards.

The proposed repeal of the Clean Water Rule could have ramifications for the drinking water for 1 in 3 Americans, 60% of our nation’s stream miles, and millions of acres of wetlands that provide essential fish and wildlife habitat. The habitats protected by the rule support America’s nearly $900 billion outdoor recreation economy. The public deserves a say in how our waters are – or are not – protected.

We need your voice now more than ever! The EPA may not want to hear from the public – but that makes it even more important.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/07/new-attack-on-clean-water-democratic-processes/feed/2129870WALKING FOR WILDLIFE AT THE PEOPLE’S CLIMATE MARCHhttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/04/walking-for-wildlife-at-the-peoples-climate-march/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/04/walking-for-wildlife-at-the-peoples-climate-march/#commentsTue, 25 Apr 2017 15:08:56 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=127623On Saturday, April 29th, tens of thousands of Americans will be coming together in Washington, DC for the People’s Climate March. Members of the National Wildlife Federation will be marching alongside climate activists from across the country in one of the largest demonstrations ever in support of protecting our environment and wildlife habitats.

Photo from Alan D. Wilson

This year’s event will follow the success of the 2014 People’s Climate March in New York City, where 400,000 people walked to demand action on climate change. On Saturday, April 29th marchers in the nation’s capital will send a clear message to congress and the Environmental Protection Agency that we will not accept rollbacks or elimination of the programs crucial to America’s wildlife.

Together, we will show leaders in Washington that we must act now to combat climate change, and do more to safeguard against record temperatures, rising sea levels and disastrous weather. Our wildlife can’t be there to march in DC, but we are going to make sure they are represented.

In the first 100 days of the current administration, the process has begun to rip apart the protections in place to maintain our clean water and air, protect the natural beauty of our public lands, and conserve the habitats crucial to all animals from butterflies to moose.

JOIN US IN THIS CRITICAL MOMENT

March with National Wildlife Federation on Saturday, April 29th10:15 AM: Meet us at the front steps of the National Postal Museum on Massachusetts Ave, directly adjacent to Union Station (on the right when you are walking out). Once our group is together, we will walk to the National Mall in front of the Capitol Building, where we will assemble with the other marchers.

Many of our friends across the country who can’t make it to Capitol Hill are participating in our Virtual Wildlife Climate March, demanding action using online tools. We’ll be taking their messages shared on social media and carrying them as signs through the streets of Washington to make sure they – and the wildlife they are defending – are seen and heard.

We hope to see you in DC and look forward to continuing our important work together for wildlife and to protect the outdoors.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/04/walking-for-wildlife-at-the-peoples-climate-march/feed/1127623Stalled Tailpipe Standards Send both Innovation and Climate Protection to the Junkyardhttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/03/stalled-tailpipe-standards-send-both-innovation-and-climate-protection-to-the-junkyard/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/03/stalled-tailpipe-standards-send-both-innovation-and-climate-protection-to-the-junkyard/#respondWed, 15 Mar 2017 20:42:35 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=126521On Wednesday, March 15, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it would cancel the next round of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas pollution improvements for cars and light trucks, stalling much-needed climate progress that would benefit wildlife and public health.

Moose are already suffering significant declines likely due to climate change in several northern states. Photo by Daniel Mitchell Rothman.

TRANSPORTATION, POLLUTION, AND WILDLIFE

The transportation sector now emits more climate pollution than any other sector in the U.S., at about 1/3 of the nation’s total per year. The carbon pollution coming from tailpipes fuels an array of damaging impacts that wildlife are already seeing, and which are predicted to get worse in the coming decades if more is not done.

Cutthroat Trout. Image: Flickr(CircumerroStock)

Moose populations in the Northeast are declining rapidly, largely due to tick infestations that cannot be curtailed during increasingly mild winters. Loggerhead sea turtles are having increasing difficulty finding nesting beaches as sea-level rise eats away at shorelines. Pika can climb no higher to find cooler elevations in the Rocky Mountains. And, freshwater streams in the West are running too warm and dry to support a healthy number of trout.

These are just a few examples of the negative impacts wildlife are already facing due to increasing climate pollution, of which transportation is a major contributor.

NATIONAL CLEAN CAR STANDARDS

The auto pollution requirements were first established in 2012 and affirmed in 2016 at the end of the EPA and Department of Transportation’s obligatory “midterm review” of what automakers would reasonably be able to accomplish with advancing technology in model years 2022-2025. The agencies determined that, based on all available data, automakers could create cars and light trucks that, when averaged across the entire fleet, would achieve about a 1 mile-per-gallon improvement in fuel economy per year over 10 years, reaching a fleet average of 54.5 MPG in 2025.

These requirements may sound modest, but they were expected to reduce carbon pollution by 540 million metric tons over the lifetime of vehicles produced between 2022-2025. This would result in a total reduction of 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide since 2011, cutting the sector’s greenhouse pollution in half.

This dramatic reduction in pollution would improve our air quality, health, and outdoor recreational experience, while making significant strides in lessening future climate change. The 2022-2025 standards would also cut oil consumption by 1.2 billion barrels and save each car owner an average of $1,650, lessening the need to drill for oil in public lands and waters, improving national security, and saving consumers money. When added on top of earlier standards, the benefits are even more significant.

STATES’ RIGHTS TO EVEN CLEANER CLEAN CAR MEASURES

Compounding trouble for wildlife, reports indicate the Trump Administration is still considering a future action to rescind a unique and vital regulatory approval granted to the state of California. This approval – which another 15 states rely on – allows those states to implement more protective air quality (including climate) standards because of their substantial pollution problems. This approval has been granted 45 times since the Clean Air Act was written, and has never been rescinded.

A WORD ABOUT SCIENCE AND PUBLIC INPUT

The 2022-2025 fuel economy standards were based on leading, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of climate change and years of transparent and thorough technical review, extensive vehicle testing, consultation with industry, varied stakeholders, and other experts, plus significant input from the public. Withdrawing the standards now unnecessarily reopens the review process and adds potentially years of delay. Wildlife cannot afford more delay in reducing pollution, especially those species losing habitat to increasingly extreme weather, wildfires, or sea-level rise. And, reversing course would leave science-based decision-making on climate change in the dust.

It is time to park this and other climate policy rollbacks by the road-side in favor of pollution solutions that benefit wildlife, consumers, and national security, and fuel the next generation of cleaner cars.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/03/stalled-tailpipe-standards-send-both-innovation-and-climate-protection-to-the-junkyard/feed/0126521The National Wildlife Federation Opposes Pruitt for EPAhttp://blog.nwf.org/2017/01/the-national-wildlife-federation-opposes-pruitt-for-epa/
http://blog.nwf.org/2017/01/the-national-wildlife-federation-opposes-pruitt-for-epa/#commentsMon, 23 Jan 2017 18:43:23 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=125528For the first time in our 80-year history, we are opposing the nomination of a presidential cabinet appointee, Environmental Protection Agency nominee Scott Pruitt. The National Wildlife Federation has a strong bipartisan membership, with members and supporters across the political spectrum, but what unites supporters from all stripes is a strong commitment to conservation values and to the importance of sound science.

Here is just a sampling of the words of some of our members who support wildlife and the habitat they rely on.

“As a proud Trump supporter in the election, I ask you to commit to strong, proactive measures during your Administration to protect our nation’s wildlife and their habitats. We took your statements during the campaign seriously: that you support wildlife conservation, protected public lands, expanded outdoor recreation opportunities and investment in our infrastructure.” – Michelle

“As a citizen and an outdoorsman, I [support] the National Wildlife Federation’s conservation agenda, and ask you to commit to strong, proactive measures during your Administration to protect our nation’s wildlife and their habitats. Wildlife is part of this beautiful country and we need to be responsible caretakers.” – Jerome

“President Trump – I have been a lifelong Republican and voted for you. That said, sometimes Republicans have a “reputation” for being against wise wildlife practices. Please side with us Republicans who are also strong supporters of saving lands and the wildlife that inhabits them, by standing strong for our nation’s wild lands.” – Jane

Following Wednesday’s hearing proceedings, Pruitt demonstrated that he is not the leader that America needs at the Environmental Protection Agency. The National Wildlife Federation has an obligation to represent the values and interests of our hunters, angler, and conservationist members – this is what leads us to oppose Scott Pruitt as the next EPA Administrator. In the words of our CEO, Collin O’Mara:

“…Mr. Pruitt’s record and policy positions represent a stark break with the Republican Party’s conservation legacy. He has sought to undermine climate science and questioned whether mercury pollution was bad for public health. He has repeatedly used the power of his office to fight to overturn the water and air safeguards that protect our fish and wildlife, public health, natural resources, and climate. He sued to stop the EPA from reducing water pollution entering upstream tributaries and wetlands. He sued to stop rules to reduce toxic mercury pollution, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide, and sued to block the Clean Power Plan.

During yesterday’s hearing, Mr. Pruitt did not say anything to suggest he would change course from this record to represent all Americans, rather than special interests. Because of this track record and the positions he stated in yesterday’s hearing, his nomination is completely unprecedented in the agency’s nearly 50 year history and must be rejected.” Click here to read the full statement.

The National Wildlife Federation is standing up for our bedrock conservation values and we encourage our leaders in Congress to vote against this nominee.

Wednesday’s hearing on the nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may prove to be the most important hearing for the EPA since it was established 47 years ago by Republican President Nixon and Bill Ruckelshaus. One common trait shared by the twelve men and women who have been confirmed by the Senate to serve as Administrator was a deep respect for sound science. There have of course been differing priorities, disagreements about the appropriate balance within the cooperative federalism relationship, and the budget and size of the Agency, but no Administrator has fundamentally questioned science or deeply questioned the authorities of the agency.

That is until now. If confirmed, Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt would be the first EPA Administrator to have openly questioned established science and expressed broad disdain for the work of the Agency. He has sued over whether carbon pollution is dangerous and to stop the Clean Power Plan. He sued to stop rules to reduce mercury pollution, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide. He sued to stop EPA from reducing water pollution entering upstream tributaries and wetlands. The issue that he made the most sense on was his opposition to the harmful Renewable Fuel Standard, a position he’s shifted since being nominated.

These actions have lead multiple former EPA Administrators appointed by Republican presidents to question the nomination. Bill Reilly, EPA Administrator under President George H.W. Bush, put it this way, “Science is the secular religion underlying everything EPA does, and one who cannot rely on it, or is determinedly contemptuous of it, cannot effectively lead the agency or serve as the country’s environmental conscience.” Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, was even more candid, saying “I don’t recall ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the agency and the science behind what the agency does.”

But it’s not just questions about whether the nominee will support sound science and uphold federal environmental laws, there are also growing questions about Pruitt’s close relationship with industry and whether those relationships influenced various lawsuits and correspondence.

At Wednesday’s Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing, Scott Pruitt will speak publicly for the first time since his nomination about his record and his views on clean air, clean water, and protecting America’s wildlife and great outdoors. Before any Senator considers voting for confirmation, it is essential that serious questions are answered about his views on science, his willingness to uphold federal protections for wildlife, clean air, and clean water, and his relationships with regulated industries.

On Thursday last week, we stood with Delaware Senator Tom Carper, ranking member of EPW, and his colleagues to reaffirm the importance of ensuring that EPA is guided by science. The National Wildlife Federation, including 36 of our state and territorial affiliates, also wrote to the members of the EPW Committee detailing the long list of threats facing wildlife, fish, birds, and their habitats. While we look forward to working with the Trump administration and members of Congress from both political parties to protect wildlife, it’s important to get clear answers to these critical questions.

Over the past fifty years, as much as half of the world’s wildlife has disappeared, while in the United States one-third of our native species are at elevated risk of extinction. Thousands of our species, including birds, pollinators, fish, amphibians, reptiles and small mammals, have suffered significant population losses since 1970. While decades of conservation efforts and investments have resulted in significant conservation achievements, the pressure and trends on overall wildlife populations must be recognized and confronted by our governing leaders.

As the Senate begins its review and confirmation of the new Administration’s cabinet nominees, we will hope and expect to see nominees demonstrate an understanding and commitment to these basic conservation principles:

Sound science must be the basis for making natural resource policy and management practices; and investment in natural resource/conservation science research must continue.

Overall investments in wildlife conservation must be increased to help counter population declines and pressures on the Endangered Species Act, while helping to grow jobs and the more than 646 billion dollar outdoor economy.

Public ownership and management of America’s 600 million acres of public lands and forests that for generations have been the inherited legacy of all Americans must be protected and preserved so that they can provide essential habitat systems for wildlife, provide public access for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation, and support the economy by generating billions of dollars and millions of jobs.

Development activities on public lands, particularly for energy purposes, must be carefully managed to protect the most fragile and important conservation areas.

Wildlife is not livestock and must be managed by wildlife professionals and held in public trust for all Americans

National protections and investments must be ensured and enhanced for the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal and marine waters for fish, wildlife, and human communities, particularly for fragile and minimally protected water resources, as well as America’s great water treasures such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River, and Delaware River.

Conservation on private land and working landscapes (such as agricultural lands) plays an essential role in supporting healthy fish and wildlife populations and providing and connecting their habitat.

Climate change is real, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced, and wildlife habitat and communities must be managed to be more resilient to the changes already taking place.

The Administration must embrace the economic growth and public benefits of moving the nation to cleaner energy sources and investments in energy efficiency.

The Administration must respect the intent and authorities of keystone environmental protection laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Antiquities Act, and others that have served as global models for protecting people, communities and wildlife.

America needs an EPA Administrator who respects sound science, protects America’s outdoor heritage, and will uphold our bedrock conservation protections, and puts the interests of all Americans above special interests. We’ll keep encouraging the Senate to raise tough questions to ensure that EPA will continue to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and the environment—and we’ll be listening for clear answers, because America’s public health and natural resources are depending upon it.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2017/01/epa-hearing-must-raise-tough-questions-on-science-enforcement-of-laws-industry-relationships/feed/0125498EPA Cuts Methane Pollutionhttp://blog.nwf.org/2016/05/epa-cuts-methane/
http://blog.nwf.org/2016/05/epa-cuts-methane/#respondThu, 12 May 2016 18:12:02 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=119271The Environmental Protection Agency finalized an important rule on May 12th to limit methane pollution from new and modified sources from oil and natural gas industry operations. The rule is expected to reduce up to 510,000 short tons of methane by 2025, the equivalent of cutting over 11 million metric tons of CO2 (or taking 2.3 million passenger vehicles off the road for one year)

The rule will regulate methane emissions by requiring:

Leak detection and repair (spotting leaks and repairing them on a regular basis)

This step comes none too soon, as climate change – partly fueled by methane pollution – continues to have troubling impacts on wildlife across the U.S. Fortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the significance of the methane problem and is working to address it.

Disrupting Wildlife and Climate

Considered a super pollutant, methane has 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide over a 20 year time period. Wildlife like the snowshoe hare, moose, and lynx are already suffering from the impacts of climate change.

With the later onset of winter and earlier onset of spring, snowshoe hares are challenged by the seasons being out of sync with their molting cycle. The hares’ bright white fur makes them an easy target for predators when there is no snow available for camouflage.

Also, moose populations in New Hampshire have declined by 40 percent in the last decade due to the increase of tick-borne disease as warmer temperatures have failed to kill off the pests. As our climate continues to change, these impacts will only become more pronounced.

New Rule Needed More Than We Thought

According to new data, methane pollution is more than 30% higher than we originally thought. The Environmental Protection Agency released new methane estimates in April of this year, updating previous estimates from 2013. Improved monitoring has revealed to the agency the significance of the pollution problem.

Gina McCarthy, EPA’s Administrator, underscored this when she said: “the new information shows that methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector are substantially higher than we previously understood. So the bottom line is – the data confirm that we can and must do more on methane.”

The largest source of emissions comes from the energy sector, with the oil and natural gas industry representing the largest proportion of human-caused methane emissions in the US.

The oil and gas industry has argued that additional regulations are unnecessary because voluntary actions have reduced methane emissions, but voluntary measures alone are not enough. EPA’s new emission estimates show that methane waste has actually been increasing since 2010, especially in oil development, and is expected to increase further with expansion of the industry. Without proper regulation, the growth of the oil and gas industry has resulted in preventable environmental harm – as well as waste of a valuable energy resource.

U.S. Emissions of Methane by Inventory Sector 2014 (Emissions in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents)

Regulating Emissions

Methane is flared at an oil and gas development site. Photo by Blake Thornberry

In February 2016, the Administration’s plan to reduce emissions from the power sector, called the Clean Power Plan, was put on hold by the Supreme Court. But the pressing need to deal with climate change continues to grow.

While the EPA awaits a court ruling on its cornerstone carbon dioxide plan for the power sector, it is critical we support the agency’s efforts to reduce the threat of methane pollution from oil and gas operations.

The new rule has laid the groundwork for future regulations on existing production sources, which, if left unaddressed, would equal approximately 90 percent of the methane pollution problem in the industry. Today, the EPA also reaffirmed its intent to regulate existing sources by issuing a notice to industry asking for information about their existing operations. For the sake of our climate and wildlife, it is critical that the EPA move forward on existing source regulations as quickly as possible.